We all know this square yogurt cup well: one large compartment contains a delicate cream, while the smaller triangular one holds crunchy balls or fruit, and there is a special fold in the middle that makes it easy to tip the “topping” into the main portion.

For years, German dairy giant Müller considered this shape one of its trademarks and even registered it as a three-dimensional trademark in Italy. However, its attempt to turn the iconic packaging into perpetual private property came to an end in Rome.

The Rome Court of First Instance issued a decision in case No. 11758/2026, establishing an important rule for the entire modern market: technical convenience cannot be monopolized by a single company.

How did it all begin?

The story began when Müller started sending warning letters to Italian supermarkets and retailers. The company threatened legal action against anyone selling yogurt in similar dual-compartment cups made by a competing Italian manufacturer, Mila.

However, Mila decided not to back down and struck back. The company went to court, seeking to invalidate Müller’s rights to the 3D shape of the yogurt cup altogether.

The Italian manufacturer presented compelling arguments:

1. History: Mila had been selling yogurt in dual-compartment cups since as early as 1987 — long before Müller decided to legally register the shape as its own.
2. Pure physics: the shape of the cup was not an artistic design but a matter of purely technical necessity.

Why Did Design Lose to Engineering?

At the heart of the legal battle was a fundamental rule of European intellectual property law: a shape dictated exclusively by the technical function of a product cannot be registered as a trademark.

Müller attempted to defend itself and presented the court with the results of consumer surveys. According to the company, consumers associated the square cup specifically with its brand, meaning that the shape had acquired distinctiveness (“secondary meaning”). Moreover, the German company argued that yogurt could also be mixed in other types of cups — round or oval ones — and therefore its particular shape was not the only possible solution.

However, relying on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the well-known Philips and Lego cases, the court in Rome rejected these arguments:

• Preservation and convenience: dividing the cup into two compartments is necessary to prevent dry cereal pieces from becoming soggy in the yogurt before consumption. The fold in the middle makes the mixing process convenient. This is a purely technical solution.
• The existence of alternatives is irrelevant: the fact that other companies may come up with a different shape for mixing does not give anyone the right to monopolize an already existing and convenient engineering solution.
• Recognition does not save it: if the shape of a product is purely functional, it cannot be protected as a trademark — even if 99% of consumers recognize it as belonging to a particular brand.

The Verdict and the Financial Whip

The court completely invalidated Müller’s registration of the 3D trademark for the yogurt cup. Moreover, the German company was officially prohibited from intimidating its competitor Mila and retail chains with legal action. For every new attempt to threaten competitors or retailers, Müller faces a fine of EUR 2,500.

A Lesson for Business

This decision once again highlights an important boundary in intellectual property law: trademarks are designed to distinguish a brand, not to block technological progress and fair competition.

Had the court ruled in favor of Müller, it would have meant that no other manufacturer in the world could produce convenient yogurt products with toppings without permission from the German giant. Thanks to the Italian court, the FMCG market remains open to healthy competition.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.